CLOSE X
RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
Search:
FMG Law Blog Line

Posts Tagged ‘Fair Debt Collection Practices’

U.S. Supreme Court Finds General Discovery Rule Inapplicable to the SOL for FDCPA Violations

Posted on: January 16th, 2020

By: Nicole L. Graham

In Klemm v. Rotkiske, No. 18-328, 589 U.S. ____ (2019), the United State Supreme Court unanimously agreed there is no blanket discovery rule that, as a matter of statutory interpretation, applies to all cases arising under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).  The majority held that the plain text of 15 U.S.C. §1692k(d) unambiguously states the date of the violation starts the clock on the one-year limitations period.  The Court declined Rotkiske’s request to read into the statute a provision that limitations period begins to run on the date on which the violation occurs or the date of discovery of such violation.  Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, found it clear from the face of the text that “[t]he FDCPA limitations period begins to run from the date the alleged FDCPA violation actually happened.”  Accordingly, the limitations period for an FDCPA claim arising from the filing of a collection action complaint begins to run from the date the action is filed and not from the date the debtor is served the complaint.  Similarly, the limitations period for an FDCPA claim based on a debt collection notice begins to run from the date of the notice and not from the date the notice is received.

The Court did, however, leave the door open to the possible application of an equitable “fraud-specific discovery rule.”  The Court declined to decide whether the text of 15 U.S.C. §1692k(d) permits the application of equitable doctrines because Rotkiske failed to preserve the issue before the Third Circuit and failed to raise the issue in his petition for certiorari.

Justice Sotomayor issued a concurring opinion to note that the Court’s decision does not prevent parties from invoking an equitable “fraud-specific discovery rule.”  Justice Ginsburg, the lone dissenter, felt Rotkiske preserved the equitable “fraud-specific discovery rule” argument in his petition for certiorari, and found the allegations of the complaint should suffice under the equitable “fraud-specific discovery rule” to permit adjudication of Rotkiske’s claim on the merits.

Because the question of the applicability of equitable exceptions to the FDCPA’s statute of limitations remains unresolved, it would not be surprising to see the issue before the Supreme Court again soon.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Nicole Graham at [email protected].

Eleventh Circuit Holds That Property Manager For Homeowners Association Is Not “Debt Collector” Under The FDCPA

Posted on: March 7th, 2013

By: Bill Buechner

The Eleventh Circuit recently held in a case of first impression that a property management company is not a “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

In Harris v. Liberty Community Management, Inc., the property management company (Liberty) was designated in its contract with the homeowners association as the general agent for the HOA.  Liberty performed a broad range of tasks for the HOA, including contracting for maintenance of the pool and other common areas, obtaining utilities, and performing a variety of accounting and banking functions. Liberty also collected on current and overdue assessments.

Due to the accumulation of more than $140,000 in unpaid assessments, the HOA adopted an amendment to its governing declarations, authorizing the HOA to suspend water service if the homeowner owed more than $750 in unpaid assessments and received adequate notice of the water suspension. The plaintiffs had their water service suspended by the HOA pursuant to this provision and filed a lawsuit challenging this action. The plaintiffs asserted that Liberty was a “debt collector” under the FDCPA and that its actions constituted an unfair debt collection practice. The plaintiffs also asserted that Liberty’s actions constituted an unfair trade practice under the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act (GFBPA).

Affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Liberty, the Eleventh Circuit noted that “not all who collect debts are ‘debt collectors’” under the FDCPA. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that Liberty fell within an exemption in the FDCPA for entities “collecting or attempting to collect any debt owed … to the extent such activity is incidental to a bona fide fiduciary duty.” The Court emphasized the numerous tasks that Liberty performed for the HOA other than debt collection, and that debt collection was only incidental to Liberty’s obligations to the HOA as its general agent.

As to the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act claim, the Court noted that the termination of water service for non-payment did not fall within the 34 specified practices identified in the statute as examples of unfair business practices. In rejecting Plaintiffs’ GFBPA claim, the Court stated that “a natural consequence of a person’s failure to pay for a service is that, at some point, the service provider may refuse to continue to provide that service.” In support of this statement, the Court cited a United States Supreme Court decision noting that, under common law, a utility is entitled to terminate service for nonpayment of an undisputed charge.

As a result of the Harris decision, property managers for HOAs, condominium associations and apartment complexes likely are exempt from the FDCPA, as long as they are performing a broad range of tasks for these entities as their general agent. Also, as a result of the Harris decision, suspending water service for nonpayment of assessments likely does not constitute an unfair trade practice under the GFBPA, as long as the homeowner receives adequate notice and the homeowner does not dispute the assessments owed.